But worse for my liberal friends, these scenes are not some
phenomenon we will forget about in six months. They have huge
implications for our politics here at home.

More than anything else, these pictures remind us that Democrats
cannot be trusted with our national security. (Though it was not the
case early in the Cold War, these days, at least when talking about
our Congress, the terms "liberal' and "Democrat" have become
interchangeable.)

For at least 30 years, it's been clear that Democrats would not
stand up to the world on behalf of America's freedom.

Whatever one thinks of the Vietnam war, who doesn't cringe when
reminded that 1972's Democratic presidential candidate, George
McGovern, said that he would "crawl to Hanoi" to end it? Richard
Nixon, of course, won that election in a spectacular landslide. The
only reason Jimmy Carter was elected four years later is because of
the Watergate scandal. Under Carter's watch, we saw one country
after another overrun by the Soviet Union, and of course American
hostages taken in Tehran.

For 12 years Americans would not allow another Democrat to be in
charge of our foreign policy.

When they finally let one back into the White House in 1992, it was
only because Reagan had ended the Cold War. There was a sense
that the world wasn't so dangerous, the stakes were "not as high"
anymore, and we could afford to risk putting a Democrat in the
White House after the first George Bush reneged on his anti-tax
pledge.

But with the War on Terror, including the necessity of going into
Iraq, we've been reminded that the "stakes" may be higher than
ever. And that leaves Democrat contenders for the White House in
trouble.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, aspiring presidential
candidate, said one week ago on the House floor, "This war is
killing our troops. This war is killing innocent Iraqi civilians. This war
must end now. It was unjust when it started two weeks ago, and is
still unjust today. The U.S. should get out now and try to save the
lives of American troops and Iraqi citizens."

Oops.

Governor Howard Dean of Vermont, another who wants to be
president, was and is utterly opposed to U.S.-led military action in
Iraq. He stands by the authority of the United Nations to have
determined our action there. Not a winning campaign theme with
most Americans right now.

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, who served with great
distinction in Vietnam, said on the eve of our entry into Baghdad
that it was the United States that needed "regime change." Note to
John, get a new speechwriter. The line wasn't even original.

Tom Daschle, Democrat leader of the Senate, just hours before the
war began, said, "I'm saddened, saddened that this president
failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war. .
.saddened that we have to give up one life because this president
couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for
our country."

The cheering Iraqis don't seem to think it was so critical.

It's true that some members of Congress running for president,
notably Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., Joe Lieberman, D-Ct., and John
Edwards, D-N.C., have at times sounded downright hawkish about
the war. But we've heard from them virtually no praise of the
spectacularly successful prosecution of the war since it began.
Why? Because hard-core, antiwar Leftists dominate the Democratic
primaries. And with those primaries set to kick off in less than a
year, these guys know they have to start catering to that crowd
now. Yet, polls consistently show that overwhelmingly, Americans
trust Republicans over Democrats with our national security.
Meaning these guys are in a quandary.

It's not that George W. Bush can't lose the next election. But his
father lost after a relatively successful first Gulf War only because
the American people did not perceive Saddam, or terrorism in
general, as a threat then to the United States. Since September 11,
2001, that perception has entirely, and rightly, changed.

Some folks might argue that now is not the time to talk about
domestic politics. But that caution would come largely from those
who don't want to admit the truth: that Americans again realize
that the world is, in fact, a very dangerous place. And that spells
big trouble for Democrats.